"I'm going to have all the negotiations around a big table. We'll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies."
— Barack Obama, August, 2008
As we write, a small group of White House officials and three senators are huddled in Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-Nev.) office deciding what kind of health care you and your family will be allowed to have.
Major policy decisions, such as whether or not there will be a government run "public" option, are being made. Backroom deals are being cut – all in secret. No C-SPAN cameras allowed.
If you think you should have a voice in this process, there is a place to make your voice heard. Just visit healthtransformation.net.
What Did Liberals Learn From the Townhalls? Shut Out the Troublemakers It's not like Americans have been apathetic about the future of our health care. Since this process began, we've demanded to know what is happening.
Last summer, Americans filled townhall meetings, many armed with copies of the 1000+ page bill that had been filed in the House – a bill that most lawmakers had never read.
And the more we learned, the less we supported the Pelosi Plan.
But what did Speaker Pelosi and the other supporters of liberal health care reform learn? How did they decide to use this input from the American people? After August, Liberals Were More Determined Than Ever to Ram Through a Bill
Some began cancelling town hall meetings. Others actually carded people in the audience to make sure they lived in their district. Still others began verbally chastising the citizens who asked questions.
Upon their return to Washington, it was clear that they had discounted what they heard at the town hall meetings. It was as if their meetings with the American people had never happened.
They were more determined than ever to ram through legislation. Democrats Blocked an Attempt to Require That Bills Be Posted Online
In the Senate, the Finance Committee decided to pass a vague proposal – containing no legislative details or cost analysis – and allow no opportunity for the American people or their elected representatives to know what was being considered until after it was done.
During the process, Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) introduced an amendment to require that all bills be publicly available for 72 hours with legislative text and an official budget analysis from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) prior to being considered.
The Democrats blocked the amendment, never allowing it to get fair and full consideration by the Senate, even though eight Senate Democrats supported the requirement. Senators Bayh (Ind.), Lincoln (Ark.), Pryor (Ark.), McCaskill (Mo.), Landrieu (La.), Nelson (Neb.), Lieberman (Conn.) and Webb (Va.), should be commended for later contacting the leadership urging them to support the change.
"When We Come Back In September, I Will be Available to Answer Any Question That Members of Congress Have" It appears clear that the decision has been made to ignore the promise President Obama made to worried Americans in the summer of 2008 and again last July when he declared:
"So I just want everybody to know, Congress will have time to read the bill. They will have time to debate the bill. They will have all of August to review the various legislative proposals. When we come back in September, I will be available to answer any question that members of Congress have. If they want to come over to the White House and go over line by line what's going on, I will be happy to do that."
It is unfortunate that the Democratic leadership has decided it would be easier to rush their legislation through rather than honoring the people's right to know.
Then again, maybe that choice is all Americans need to know when judging the Democrats' healthcare bill. Go to healthtransformation.net to Make Your Voice Heard Sponsored Content
OUTRAGE!!
Billion-dollar drug company hides astounding discovery of a natural cancer killer. 10,000 times stronger than chemo—but without the side effects!
One pharmaceutical company actually made the ‘discovery of the century’ – a miracle breakthrough that could save you or someone you love from the ravages of cancer. But…They hid the secret for SEVEN FULL YEARS…with no plans to tell anyone about it ever!
Click here to read the full story of this astounding breakthrough—and the dozens of other underground cures not yet available to mainstream medicine…
President Obama has failed to deliver on his repeated promises of transparency and openness.
But that doesn't mean that we have to silently accept a government health care bill that was negotiated in secret and paid for with deals cut with special interests using our tax dollars.
Please sign the Center for Health Transformation's (CHT) petition at click here, to tell Washington that We The People demand that all bills be publicly available, including legislative language and accurate budget analysis, at least 72 hours prior to any vote by Congress or committees in Congress.
There's still time to make your voice heard. "60 Minutes" Takes On Medicare and Medicaid Fraud The correspondent announced the report with the warning that "it might raise your blood pressure."
He was right. Last Sunday night, CBS's "60 Minutes" ran a not-to-be-missed expose of something that the Center for Health Transformation has been warning about for months: The unbelievable amount of fraud taxpayers are footing the bill for in the Medicare and Medicaid programs.
"60 Minutes" estimates that an amazing $90 billion in spending on these programs each year is due to fraud. That's right in line with what CHT's Jim Frogue and I report in our book Stop Paying the Crooks. "
Irish Mike
"The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of other people's money."
> "I'm going to have all the negotiations around a big table. We'll have the > negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making > arguments on behalf of their constituents and who are making arguments on > behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies."
> — Barack Obama, August, 2008
> As we write, a small group of White House officials and three senators are > huddled in Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-Nev.) office deciding > what kind of health care you and your family will be allowed to have.
> Major policy decisions, such as whether or not there will be a government > run "public" option, are being made. Backroom deals are being cut – all in > secret. No C-SPAN cameras allowed.
> If you think you should have a voice in this process, there is a place to > make your voice heard. Just visit healthtransformation.net.
> What Did Liberals Learn From the Townhalls? > Shut Out the Troublemakers > It's not like Americans have been apathetic about the future of our health > care. Since this process began, we've demanded to know what is happening.
> Last summer, Americans filled townhall meetings, many armed with copies of > the 1000+ page bill that had been filed in the House – a bill that most > lawmakers had never read.
> And the more we learned, the less we supported the Pelosi Plan.
> But what did Speaker Pelosi and the other supporters of liberal health > care reform learn? How did they decide to use this input from the American > people? > After August, Liberals Were More Determined Than > Ever to Ram Through a Bill
> Some began cancelling town hall meetings. Others actually carded people in > the audience to make sure they lived in their district. Still others began > verbally chastising the citizens who asked questions.
> Upon their return to Washington, it was clear that they had discounted > what they heard at the town hall meetings. It was as if their meetings > with the American people had never happened.
> They were more determined than ever to ram through legislation. > Democrats Blocked an Attempt to Require That > Bills Be Posted Online
> In the Senate, the Finance Committee decided to pass a vague proposal – > containing no legislative details or cost analysis – and allow no > opportunity for the American people or their elected representatives to > know what was being considered until after it was done.
> During the process, Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) introduced an amendment to > require that all bills be publicly available for 72 hours with legislative > text and an official budget analysis from the Congressional Budget Office > (CBO) prior to being considered.
> The Democrats blocked the amendment, never allowing it to get fair and > full consideration by the Senate, even though eight Senate Democrats > supported the requirement. Senators Bayh (Ind.), Lincoln (Ark.), Pryor > (Ark.), McCaskill (Mo.), Landrieu (La.), Nelson (Neb.), Lieberman (Conn.) > and Webb (Va.), should be commended for later contacting the leadership > urging them to support the change.
> "When We Come Back In September, I Will be Available to > Answer Any Question That Members of Congress Have" > It appears clear that the decision has been made to ignore the promise > President Obama made to worried Americans in the summer of 2008 and again > last July when he declared:
> "So I just want everybody to know, Congress will have time to read the > bill. They will have time to debate the bill. They will have all of August > to review the various legislative proposals. When we come back in > September, I will be available to answer any question that members of > Congress have. If they want to come over to the White House and go over > line by line what's going on, I will be happy to do that."
> It is unfortunate that the Democratic leadership has decided it would be > easier to rush their legislation through rather than honoring the people's > right to know.
> Then again, maybe that choice is all Americans need to know when judging > the Democrats' healthcare bill. > Go to healthtransformation.net to Make Your Voice Heard > Sponsored Content
> OUTRAGE!!
> Billion-dollar drug company hides astounding discovery of a natural cancer > killer. 10,000 times stronger than chemo—but without the side effects!
> One pharmaceutical company actually made the ‘discovery of the century’ – > a miracle breakthrough that could save you or someone you love from the > ravages of cancer. But…They hid the secret for SEVEN FULL YEARS…with no > plans to tell anyone about it ever!
> Click here to read the full story of this astounding breakthrough—and the > dozens of other underground cures not yet available to mainstream > medicine…
> President Obama has failed to deliver on his repeated promises of > transparency and openness.
> But that doesn't mean that we have to silently accept a government health > care bill that was negotiated in secret and paid for with deals cut with > special interests using our tax dollars.
> Please sign the Center for Health Transformation's (CHT) petition at click > here, to tell Washington that We The People demand that all bills be > publicly available, including legislative language and accurate budget > analysis, at least 72 hours prior to any vote by Congress or committees in > Congress.
> There's still time to make your voice heard. > "60 Minutes" Takes On Medicare and Medicaid Fraud > The correspondent announced the report with the warning that "it might > raise your blood pressure."
> He was right. Last Sunday night, CBS's "60 Minutes" ran a not-to-be-missed > expose of something that the Center for Health Transformation has been > warning about for months: The unbelievable amount of fraud taxpayers are > footing the bill for in the Medicare and Medicaid programs.
> "60 Minutes" estimates that an amazing $90 billion in spending on these > programs each year is due to fraud. That's right in line with what CHT's > Jim Frogue and I report in our book Stop Paying the Crooks. "
> Irish Mike
> "The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of other > people's money."
On Oct 28, 8:38 am, "Irish Mike" <ad7c...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> "60 Minutes" estimates that an amazing $90 billion in spending on these > programs each year is due to fraud. That's right in line with what CHT's > Jim Frogue and I report in our book Stop Paying the Crooks. "
Please compare that to the trillions (billion X 1,000) spent on nuclear weapons. Weapons never used. http://www.brookings.edu/projects/archive/nucweapons/50.aspx Note: amounts are in constant 1996 dollars, easily double amounts to take in inflation values.
Now some may argue that nuclear weapons keep us stong and safe. This may be true or it may not. Consider the US is THE largest dealer in weapons world wide. We sell to friends and foes alike, thereby aggitating those who would attack. And, exactly how many nuclear weapons do we need? And how much waste and fraud is involved?
Lastly, consider if all the money spent on nuclear weapons were to be spent on anti-povery programs. The amount of world wide tension would be lessened by many degrees. Google "hammer swords into plowshares" to find smarter people than I discussing this. Mathew 7:12, In everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.”
> On Oct 28, 8:38 am, "Irish Mike" <ad7c...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> > "60 Minutes" estimates that an amazing $90 billion in spending on these > > programs each year is due to fraud. That's right in line with what CHT's > > Jim Frogue and I report in our book Stop Paying the Crooks. "
> Please compare that to the trillions (billion X 1,000) spent on > nuclear weapons. Weapons never used.
Our nuclear weapons are used every day dumbass. They aren't "fired"...they are used to prevent others from firing them...the fact that we have enough to obliterate anyone else is what makes us the world's only superpower. Don't you understand that?
> Now some may argue that nuclear weapons keep us stong and safe. This > may be true or it may not. Consider the US is THE largest dealer in > weapons world wide. We sell to friends and foes alike, thereby > aggitating those who would attack. And, exactly how many nuclear > weapons do we need? And how much waste and fraud is involved?
> Lastly, consider if all the money spent on nuclear weapons were to be > spent on anti-povery programs. The amount of world wide tension would > be lessened by many degrees. Google "hammer swords into plowshares" to > find smarter people than I discussing this. Mathew 7:12, In > everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this > sums up the Law and the Prophets.”
> > On Oct 28, 8:38 am, "Irish Mike" <ad7c...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> > > "60 Minutes" estimates that an amazing $90 billion in spending on these > > > programs each year is due to fraud. That's right in line with what CHT's > > > Jim Frogue and I report in our book Stop Paying the Crooks. "
> > Please compare that to the trillions (billion X 1,000) spent on > > nuclear weapons. Weapons never used.
> Our nuclear weapons are used every day dumbass. They aren't > "fired"...they are used to prevent others from firing them...the fact that > we have enough to obliterate anyone else is what makes us the world's only > superpower. Don't you understand that?
It's the nukes we have on board our warships hat ensures no nutcase would ever attack us with a small motorboat. We're a SuperPower.
------ * kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
> On Oct 28, 8:38 am, "Irish Mike" <ad7c...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> > "60 Minutes" estimates that an amazing $90 billion in spending on these > > programs each year is due to fraud. That's right in line with what CHT's > > Jim Frogue and I report in our book Stop Paying the Crooks. "
> Please compare that to the trillions (billion X 1,000) spent on > nuclear weapons. Weapons never used.http://www.brookings.edu/projects/archive/nucweapons/50.aspxNote: > amounts are in constant 1996 dollars, easily double amounts to take in > inflation values.
> Now some may argue that nuclear weapons keep us stong and safe. This > may be true or it may not. Consider the US is THE largest dealer in > weapons world wide. We sell to friends and foes alike, thereby > aggitating those who would attack. And, exactly how many nuclear > weapons do we need? And how much waste and fraud is involved?
> Lastly, consider if all the money spent on nuclear weapons were to be > spent on anti-povery programs. The amount of world wide tension would > be lessened by many degrees. Google "hammer swords into plowshares" to > find smarter people than I discussing this. Mathew 7:12, In > everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this > sums up the Law and the Prophets.”
If you want to discuss defense spedning, I would point out that the estimates are that we have spent $4 trillion since Reagan on 'Star Wars', a system that doesn't work, and, in my scientific opinion, can't work. How would the deficits look if we hadn't done that?
If you want to discuss defense spedning, I would point out that the estimates are that we have spent $4 trillion since Reagan on 'Star Wars', a system that doesn't work, and, in my scientific opinion, can't work. How would the deficits look if we hadn't done that?
===============================
You guys ... we were working on what is loosely called Star Wars long before Reagan.
The part that you seem interested in "did" work. Try a Google on "dead hand" from the old redbellies. Now THAT was a system. (Your scientific opinion does not seem that accurate. I have built "systems" that such folks also said "can't work" and were "physically impossible." Built them, flew them and showed the nay sayers they were simply not thinking out of the box.)
>If you want to discuss defense spedning, I would point out that the >estimates are that we have spent $4 trillion since Reagan on 'Star >Wars', a system that doesn't work, and, in my scientific opinion, >can't work. How would the deficits look if we hadn't done that?
how would the deficits look if we hadn't spent, since the beginning of the war on poverty, $15.9 trillion on welfare programs? The total cost of every war in American history, starting with the American Revolution, is $6.4 trillion,adjusted for inflation. now barry, seeing how well all that welfare worked,plans on spending $10.3 trillion over the next 10 years on more welfare yeah ,that nasty defense budget.
> If you want to discuss defense spedning, I would point out that the > estimates are that we have spent $4 trillion since Reagan on 'Star > Wars', a system that doesn't work, and, in my scientific opinion, > can't work. How would the deficits look if we hadn't done that?
> ===============================
> You guys ... we were working on what is loosely called Star Wars long before > Reagan.
> The part that you seem interested in "did" work. Try a Google on "dead > hand" from the old redbellies. Now THAT was a system. (Your scientific > opinion does not seem that accurate. I have built "systems" that such folks > also said "can't work" and were "physically impossible." Built them, flew > them and showed the nay sayers they were simply not thinking out of the > box.)
1. From my reading, the 'dead hand' system was mostly an issue of Command and Control, with the biggest problem being avoiding a Dr. Strangelove scenario. 2. I would be interested to see a working system which is deemed to be 'physically impossible'. 3. Destroying a fragile satellite in known orbit (the most recent success of 'Star Wars') is a far cry from destroying a MIRV'd missile in a short, high-velocity trajectory. We don't have the means to hit it, or do more than disable it, which means that it still hits. Some history: a) The suggestion by Oppenheimer (if I recall) was to use an X-ray laser, which required A-bombs to power it. b) The only successes of the Patriot missile system in the first Gulf War were 2 British aircraft, and no Scud missiles. c) The last big test of interception involved a target with bot a homing beacon and self-desctruct system. Can we get our enemies to be that obliging?
For the bigger picture, where would we be had we spent all of that money on energy research and extraction?
> You guys ... we were working on what is loosely called Star Wars long > before > Reagan.
> The part that you seem interested in "did" work. ?Try a Google on "dead > hand" from the old redbellies. ?Now THAT was a system. ?(Your scientific > opinion does not seem that accurate. ?I have built "systems" that such > folks > also said "can't work" and were "physically impossible." ?Built them, flew > them and showed the nay sayers they were simply not thinking out of the > box.)
1. From my reading, the 'dead hand' system was mostly an issue of Command and Control, with the biggest problem being avoiding a Dr. Strangelove scenario.
You need to read some more. It was the ultimate anti-fail-safe system.
2. I would be interested to see a working system which is deemed to be 'physically impossible'.
Are you for real? If it has been built and it works, it is obviously possible. It is in the planning stages that folks say "the physics will not allow such a system to be built" and they turn out to be wrong. They are into that "scientific consensus" stuff and do not think outside the box. Flat earth folks all ... if you have faith that something cannot be done, it will not be done ... by you.
3. Destroying a fragile satellite in known orbit (the most recent success of 'Star Wars') is a far cry from destroying a MIRV'd missile in a short, high-velocity trajectory. We don't have the means to hit it, or do more than disable it, which means that it still hits.
Well, we could do that thirty years ago. You may be beyond your area here.
Some history: a) The suggestion by Oppenheimer (if I recall) was to use an X-ray laser, which required A-bombs to power it.
That was true, but that was more than thirty years ago.
b) The only successes of the Patriot missile system in the first Gulf War were 2 British aircraft, and no Scud missiles.
Patriots are not designed for "star wars" deterence.
c) The last big test of interception involved a target with bot a homing beacon and self-desctruct system. Can we get our enemies to be that obliging?
If that was recent, I do not know anything about it. Do not know what they were testing.
I was involved in the thirty year ago time frame. We had eye burners and sheetmetal burners and lots of other really cool stuff. A lot of rabbits and monkeys died for their country. Lots of airplanes and missles were lost as well.
------------------------------------- For the bigger picture, where would we be had we spent all of that money on energy research and extraction? --------------------------------------
Who is this "we?" Do you mean the government? Energy companies have spent a lot more money on energy research and extraction than the government has ever had money ... taken from "us." That money has been well spent.
I suppose we could live with an emboldened USSR and that darned Berlin Wall still sitting there and folks being shot for trying to see their relatives on the other side. And all that money we wasted on WWII ... how about that? After all, we stuck our noses into something that did not concern us and it cost us dearly.
> > You guys ... we were working on what is loosely called Star Wars long > > before > > Reagan.
> > The part that you seem interested in "did" work. ?Try a Google on "dead > > hand" from the old redbellies. ?Now THAT was a system. ?(Your scientific > > opinion does not seem that accurate. ?I have built "systems" that such > > folks > > also said "can't work" and were "physically impossible." ?Built them, flew > > them and showed the nay sayers they were simply not thinking out of the > > box.)
> 1. From my reading, the 'dead hand' system was mostly an issue of > Command and Control, with the biggest problem being avoiding a Dr. > Strangelove scenario.
> You need to read some more. It was the ultimate anti-fail-safe system.
> 2. I would be interested to see a working system which is deemed to be > 'physically impossible'.
> Are you for real? If it has been built and it works, it is obviously > possible. It is in the planning stages that folks say "the physics will not > allow such a system to be built" and they turn out to be wrong. They are > into that "scientific consensus" stuff and do not think outside the box. > Flat earth folks all ... if you have faith that something cannot be done, it > will not be done ... by you.
> 3. Destroying a fragile satellite in known orbit (the most recent > success of 'Star Wars') is a far cry from destroying a MIRV'd missile > in a short, high-velocity trajectory. We don't have the means to hit > it, or do more than disable it, which means that it still hits.
> Well, we could do that thirty years ago. You may be beyond your area here.
> Some history: > a) The suggestion by Oppenheimer (if I recall) was to use an X-ray > laser, which required A-bombs to power it.
> That was true, but that was more than thirty years ago.
> b) The only successes of the Patriot missile system in the first Gulf > War were 2 British aircraft, and no Scud missiles.
> Patriots are not designed for "star wars" deterence.
> c) The last big test of interception involved a target with bot a > homing beacon and self-desctruct system. Can we get our enemies to be > that obliging?
> If that was recent, I do not know anything about it. Do not know what they > were testing.
> I was involved in the thirty year ago time frame. We had eye burners and > sheetmetal burners and lots of other really cool stuff. A lot of rabbits > and monkeys died for their country. Lots of airplanes and missles were lost > as well.
> ------------------------------------- > For the bigger picture, where would we be had we spent all of that > money on energy research and extraction? > --------------------------------------
> Who is this "we?" Do you mean the government? Energy companies have spent > a lot more money on energy research and extraction than the government has > ever had money ... taken from "us." That money has been well spent.
> I suppose we could live with an emboldened USSR and that darned Berlin Wall > still sitting there and folks being shot for trying to see their relatives > on the other side. And all that money we wasted on WWII ... how about that? > After all, we stuck our noses into something that did not concern us and it > cost us dearly.
In no particular order:
1. Actually, America ended up making a profit on WWII. Not only did they get their hands on all of Britain's gold, but they also helped dissolve the Empire, meaning that Britain had to borrow money at interest. In addition, the re-building of Europe gave a huge market for US manufactured goods, until about 1975.
2. The consensus among some military and economic experts is that Reagan's actions hastened the collapse of the USSR by about 6 weeks.
3. We can't generate the power needed, nor apply it for long enough, for a laser to destroy a missile. ICBMs are big hunks of thick metal. It pretty much has to be an explosive interception, with the very real danger of just putting the detonation of the nuclear bomb somewhere else. Given the size of the US, this could easily be still on the continent.
4. My point about the Patriot is that they couldn't even hit short- range, fairly slow missiles, which is what they were designed to do.
5. I stand by my earlier point. You are claiming that we can build systems that, in the planning stage '...folks say "the physics will not allow such a system to be built"'. Would you care to give an example?
6. As for the energy research, our current long-term hope for US independence is shale oil. The research for that was from the Department of Energy under Carter. The oil companies pushed to shut the programs down under Reagan. The scientists who worked on it are now dying/retiring, and it will take at least 10 years to get back to where we were in 1980.
1. Actually, America ended up making a profit on WWII. Not only did they get their hands on all of Britain's gold, but they also helped dissolve the Empire, meaning that Britain had to borrow money at interest. In addition, the re-building of Europe gave a huge market for US manufactured goods, until about 1975.
I believe you are in serious error or in serious make-it-up mode.
2. The consensus among some military and economic experts is that Reagan's actions hastened the collapse of the USSR by about 6 weeks.
Well, I am not much for "consensus" assumptions. Again, you can have an opinion ... I believe yours is not supported.
3. We can't generate the power needed, nor apply it for long enough, for a laser to destroy a missile. ICBMs are big hunks of thick metal. It pretty much has to be an explosive interception, with the very real danger of just putting the detonation of the nuclear bomb somewhere else. Given the size of the US, this could easily be still on the continent. =======================
Interesting thought. I suppose you also believe a lot of other things that might be incorrect. Again, you can have your opinion, but it might be just as incorrect as some of your other thoughts. (You error is in thinking things have to be destroyed to be rendered useless and that you must use lasers to accomplish your task.
4. My point about the Patriot is that they couldn't even hit short- range, fairly slow missiles, which is what they were designed to do.
There were difficulties with the Patriot missle. I do not know much about them nor do I know whether their deployment was proper or not. I know a lot about programs in which I was personally involved ... I know how those programs were perceived by those that had no need to know. All of them were compartmentalized. So, I can only judge by the misconceptions about which I am sure.
5. I stand by my earlier point. You are claiming that we can build systems that, in the planning stage '...folks say "the physics will not allow such a system to be built"'. Would you care to give an example?
Your point was not well conceived. There are many examples ... one quick one is an airborne ruby laser system built after the "experts" at ARPA indicated that the system could not be built because the power required would demand the generators at niagra falls. The system was built and flown on a modified F4 into North Vietnam using a technique that is still classified. (Follow-on systems were much better conceived and built and required much less power than the original ... and the lasers were better as well.) [That original did require that one of the engines of the F4 be dedicated to powering the laser, but it was built. I built many systems that experts in physics said could not be built for one reason or another. The state of the art is often "pushed" by such innovation. The old "consensus" gives way to the new reality.
6. As for the energy research, our current long-term hope for US independence is shale oil. The research for that was from the Department of Energy under Carter. The oil companies pushed to shut the programs down under Reagan. The scientists who worked on it are now dying/retiring, and it will take at least 10 years to get back to where we were in 1980.
You are full of a lot of opinions. Energy "independence" is an illusion, in my opinion. The real world is a big and dangerous place. One must always be on guard for what might be on the horizon. It is still possible for the American Empire to collapse. Many will cheer the demise but they will cry if the new gorilla is not as benevolent as the old gorilla. In retrospect, the Americans will be missed for the exceptional people that they were.
On Nov 3, 3:19 pm, "da pickle" <jcpickels@(nospam)hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Tim Norfolk"
> In no particular order: > =============
> Responses in order.
> 1. Actually, America ended up making a profit on WWII. Not only did > they get their hands on all of Britain's gold, but they also helped > dissolve the Empire, meaning that Britain had to borrow money at > interest. In addition, the re-building of Europe gave a huge market > for US manufactured goods, until about 1975.
> I believe you are in serious error or in serious make-it-up mode.
Not quite. I read an interesting essay about the effects after WWII, when Britain was broke. The US lent them money (in 1947, I believe), but forced them into the Breton Woods agreement as part of the bargain. I am sure that the government lost money, but the US made money as a whole.
> 2. The consensus among some military and economic experts is that > Reagan's actions hastened the collapse of the USSR by about 6 weeks.
> Well, I am not much for "consensus" assumptions. Again, you can have an > opinion ... I believe yours is not supported.
There is a new history book, just discussed on Monday's 'Colbert Report' which discusses this. If I recall, Al Franken talks about an interview with a senior USSR general as well.
> 3. We can't generate the power needed, nor apply it for long enough, > for a laser to destroy a missile. ICBMs are big hunks of thick metal. > It pretty much has to be an explosive interception, with the very real > danger of just putting the detonation of the nuclear bomb somewhere > else. Given the size of the US, this could easily be still on the > continent. > =======================
> Interesting thought. I suppose you also believe a lot of other things that > might be incorrect. Again, you can have your opinion, but it might be just > as incorrect as some of your other thoughts. (You error is in thinking > things have to be destroyed to be rendered useless and that you must use > lasers to accomplish your task.
It is damned hard to kill a nuclear weapon. They are by design not exactly fragile.
> 4. My point about the Patriot is that they couldn't even hit short- > range, fairly slow missiles, which is what they were designed to do.
> There were difficulties with the Patriot missle. I do not know much about > them nor do I know whether their deployment was proper or not. I know a lot > about programs in which I was personally involved ... I know how those > programs were perceived by those that had no need to know. All of them were > compartmentalized. So, I can only judge by the misconceptions about which I > am sure.
> 5. I stand by my earlier point. You are claiming that we can build > systems that, in the planning stage '...folks say "the physics will > not allow such a system to be built"'. Would you care to give an example?
> Your point was not well conceived. There are many examples ... one quick > one is an airborne ruby laser system built after the "experts" at ARPA > indicated that the system could not be built because the power required > would demand the generators at niagra falls. The system was built and flown > on a modified F4 into North Vietnam using a technique that is still > classified. (Follow-on systems were much better conceived and built and > required much less power than the original ... and the lasers were better as > well.) [That original did require that one of the engines of the F4 be > dedicated to powering the laser, but it was built. I built many systems > that experts in physics said could not be built for one reason or another. > The state of the art is often "pushed" by such innovation. The old > "consensus" gives way to the new reality.
That doesn't jibe with your comment that the experts said that it was 'physically impossible'. I did work with some DOD guys on lasers, and the fundamental problem with trying to kill, rather than blind things, is the power dissipation.
> 6. As for the energy research, our current long-term hope for US > independence is shale oil. The research for that was from the > Department of Energy under Carter. The oil companies pushed to shut > the programs down under Reagan. The scientists who worked on it are > now dying/retiring, and it will take at least 10 years to get back to > where we were in 1980.
> You are full of a lot of opinions. Energy "independence" is an illusion, in > my opinion. The real world is a big and dangerous place. One must always > be on guard for what might be on the horizon. It is still possible for the > American Empire to collapse. Many will cheer the demise but they will cry > if the new gorilla is not as benevolent as the old gorilla. In retrospect, > the Americans will be missed for the exceptional people that they were.
Given that we are almost certainly in the peak oil years, we had better get an alternative soon. My choice would be a combination of desert solar and nuclear, but we are just too dependent on fossil fuels. At least until we get some decent fuel cells.
I will join you in deep regret is the US falls. I love this country, which is why I became a citizen last year.
> 1. Actually, America ended up making a profit on WWII. Not only did > they get their hands on all of Britain's gold, but they also helped > dissolve the Empire, meaning that Britain had to borrow money at > interest. In addition, the re-building of Europe gave a huge market > for US manufactured goods, until about 1975.
> I believe you are in serious error or in serious make-it-up mode.
Not quite. I read an interesting essay about the effects after WWII, when Britain was broke. The US lent them money (in 1947, I believe), but forced them into the Breton Woods agreement as part of the bargain. I am sure that the government lost money, but the US made money as a whole. ==============================
Even though you may have read an interesting essay, it is still my opinion that "America ended up making a profit on WWII" is a seriously flawed conclusion.
> 2. The consensus among some military and economic experts is that > Reagan's actions hastened the collapse of the USSR by about 6 weeks.
> Well, I am not much for "consensus" assumptions. ?Again, you can have an > opinion ... I believe yours is not supported.
There is a new history book, just discussed on Monday's 'Colbert Report' which discusses this. If I recall, Al Franken talks about an interview with a senior USSR general as well. ==================================
I would certainly not wish to disturb an opinion based on the Colbert Report and Al Franken.
> 3. We can't generate the power needed, nor apply it for long enough, > for a laser to destroy a missile. ICBMs are big hunks of thick metal. > It pretty much has to be an explosive interception, with the very real > danger of just putting the detonation of the nuclear bomb somewhere > else. Given the size of the US, this could easily be still on the > continent.
> Interesting thought. ?I suppose you also believe a lot of other things > that > might be incorrect. ?Again, you can have your opinion, but it might be > just > as incorrect as some of your other thoughts. ?(You error is in thinking > things have to be destroyed to be rendered useless and that you must use > lasers to accomplish your task.
It is damned hard to kill a nuclear weapon. They are by design not exactly fragile. =========================
You might mean many things when you say "kill a nuclear weapon" ... however, you have not made much of a point that can be discussed with any clarity.
> 4. My point about the Patriot is that they couldn't even hit short- > range, fairly slow missiles, which is what they were designed to do.
> There were difficulties with the Patriot missle. ?I do not know much about > them nor do I know whether their deployment was proper or not. ?I know a > lot > about programs in which I was personally involved ... I know how those > programs were perceived by those that had no need to know. ?All of them > were > compartmentalized. ?So, I can only judge by the misconceptions about which > I > am sure.
> 5. I stand by my earlier point. You are claiming that we can build > systems that, in the planning stage '...folks say "the physics will > not allow such a system to be built"'. Would you care to give an example?
> Your point was not well conceived. ?There are many examples ... one quick > one is an airborne ruby laser system built after the "experts" at ARPA > indicated that the system could not be built because the power required > would demand the generators at niagra falls. ?The system was built and > flown > on a modified F4 into North Vietnam using a technique that is still > classified. ?(Follow-on systems were much better conceived and built and > required much less power than the original ... and the lasers were better > as > well.) ?[That original did require that one of the engines of the F4 be > dedicated to powering the laser, but it was built. ?I built many systems > that experts in physics said could not be built for one reason or another. > The state of the art is often "pushed" by such innovation. ?The old > "consensus" gives way to the new reality.
That doesn't jibe with your comment that the experts said that it was 'physically impossible'. I did work with some DOD guys on lasers, and the fundamental problem with trying to kill, rather than blind things, is the power dissipation. ==================================
There is "physic-s" right there in the middle of physically impossible ... OK, not right in the middle ... more like at the very beginning. I guess I am just being trolled. You win. [You got me with "some DOD guys on lasers" ... LOL ... nh ... gg.]
> 6. As for the energy research, our current long-term hope for US > independence is shale oil. The research for that was from the > Department of Energy under Carter. The oil companies pushed to shut > the programs down under Reagan. The scientists who worked on it are > now dying/retiring, and it will take at least 10 years to get back to > where we were in 1980.
> You are full of a lot of opinions. ?Energy "independence" is an illusion, > in > my opinion. ?The real world is a big and dangerous place. ?One must always > be on guard for what might be on the horizon. ?It is still possible for > the > American Empire to collapse. ?Many will cheer the demise but they will cry > if the new gorilla is not as benevolent as the old gorilla. ?In > retrospect, > the Americans will be missed for the exceptional people that they were.
Given that we are almost certainly in the peak oil years, we had better get an alternative soon. My choice would be a combination of desert solar and nuclear, but we are just too dependent on fossil fuels. At least until we get some decent fuel cells.
I will join you in deep regret is the US falls. I love this country, which is why I became a citizen last year. ================================
|
